Comentarios bíblicos

1. The former treatise] In the original we have the superlative adjective used, but the idiom which speaks of the first of two is common to Greek with many other languages. An example is found 1 Corinthians 14:30. So Cicero, de Inventione, in his second book (chap, iii.) calls the former book primus liber.

treatise] The original (λόγος) indicates rather an inartistic narrative than a history. It is a book more like a piece of Herodotus than Thucydides.

have I made] Better, I made. The time is indefinite, and we have no warrant in the text for that closer union of the two books, in point of date, which is made by the language of the A. V.

Theophilus] Nothing is known of the person to whom St Luke addresses both his Gospel and the Acts, but the adjective “most excellent” applied to him in Luke 1:3 is the same which is used in addressing Felix in a letter and in a speech (Acts 23:26; Acts 24:3), and Festus (Acts 26:25) in a speech; from which we are perhaps warranted in concluding that Theophilus was a person of rank, and it may be a Roman officer. Josephus uses the same word in addressing Epaphroditus, to whom he dedicates the account of his life (Vit. Josephi, ad fin.). The suggestion that Theophilus (= lover of God) is a name adopted by the writer to indicate any believer, is improbable. Such personification is unlike the rest of Scripture, and is not supported by evidence.

began] for the Gospel is not a history of all that Jesus did, but only an account of the foundations which He laid and on which the Church should afterwards be built So this book is still an account of what the Lord does and teaches from heaven.

to do and teach] As in the Gospel (Luke 24:19) the disciples call Jesus “a prophet mighty in deed and in word.” The acts and life spake first, and then the tongue.

Acts 1:1-14. Link connecting this book with St Luke’s Gospel. Detailed account of the Ascension

The Title. According to the best MSS. this should be simply “Acts of Apostles.” The Cod. Sin. gives only “Acts.” The former of these titles, while having most authority, also most fitly describes the character of the composition. The book is not The Acts of the Apostles, but merely some Acts of certain Apostles which are related by the author, intermixed with the acts of others among the Christian community, where such additions were needful to make the story clear. The writer tells us in the introduction how Christ, when ascending in glory, declared what should be the course which His doctrine should take in its extension, “Ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem and in all Judæa and Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). To describe the fulfilment of this departing prophecy is that on which the whole book is engaged. It is natural, therefore, to find that the two chief actors are the energetic Peter, and, after his conversion, the enthusiastic Apostle of the Gentiles. But even they are only used as representative characters. The writer does not aim at giving us full details of the work of either of these Apostles. We see most of Peter and John while the preaching is confined to Jerusalem, but the narrative leaves them to recount some acts of Philip, because he was the pioneer of the Gospel in Samaria. Peter is again brought before us engaged in preaching in Judæa and Samaria and confirming the work which Philip and his companions had begun; and because the conversion of Cornelius was the beginning of the proclamation of Christ’s message beyond the Jewish race, we have a full account of St Peter’s mission to this first Gentile convert and of the debate which arose among the Jews in consequence. But when Peter has been present at the council of Jerusalem, at which was finally settled the relation between the Jews and Gentiles who became Christians, we lose sight of him, and the further spread of the Gospel is summarized in a description of some of the labours of St Paul; and when he has reached the capital of the west, to shew us that the writer contemplated no biography of St Paul, the history comes to what some have thought an abrupt close. But the writer’s task was done when he had told how the great Apostle brought Christ’s message to the capital of the Gentile world. See Introduction.

2. the day in which he was taken up] The Gospel of St Luke closes with a very brief notice of the Ascension: of which event fuller details are given in this chapter, so as to form a connection between the two treatises and to indicate the purpose with which the latter was written. See below on Acts 1:8.

through the Holy Ghost] That the whole institution of the Christian Church might be Divine. The Spirit of the Lord was upon the Anointed Jesus in this as in His other works and words. Cp. Luke 4:18.

3. after his passion] Literally, after he had suffered.

by many infallible proofs] The adjective here has no representative in the original. The Greek word signifies some sign or token manifest to the senses, as opposed to evidence given by witnesses. The word infallible has been used in the A. V. to bring out this signification. It is better to omit it. The proofs here meant are Christ’s speaking, walking and eating with His disciples on several occasions after His resurrection, and giving to Thomas and the rest the clearest demonstration that He was with them in the same real body as before His death, and not in appearance only (Luke 24:39; Luke 24:43; John 20:27; John 21:13). As the verity of the Resurrection would be the basis of all the Apostolic preaching, it was necessary that such clear proofs as these should be given by Christ to the twelve who were to be His witnesses.

being seen of them forty days] Better, appearing unto them by the space of forty days. Christ was not continuously with the disciples, but shewed Himself to them frequently at intervals during the forty days between the Resurrection and the Ascension. The period of forty days is only mentioned here, and it has been alleged as a discrepancy between the Gospel of St Luke and the Acts that the former (Luke 24) represents the Ascension as taking place on the same day as the Resurrection. It needs very little examination to disperse such an idea. The two disciples there mentioned (Luke 24:13) were at Emmaus “towards evening” on the day of Christ’s resurrection; they returned to Jerusalem that night and told what they had seen. But after this has been stated the chapter is broken up at Luke 24:36 (which a comparison with John (John 20:26-28) shews to be an account of what took place eight days after the Resurrection), and at v. 44 and v. 50, into three distinct sections with no necessary marks of time to unite them, and in the midst of the whole we are told that Christ opened the mind of His disciples that they might understand the Scriptures. No reasonable person would conclude that all this was done in one day. Beside which the objectors prove too much, for according to their reasoning the Ascension must have taken place at night after the two disciples had come again to Jerusalem from Emmaus.

the kingdom of God] This expression is found most frequently in the last three Evangelists, St Matthew’s form being “the kingdom of heaven.” It has several significations, but here, as in Mark 1:14, it includes the whole Christian dispensation, its message, progress and economy. Some traces of the nature of these communications in the forty days we find in the Gospels. The disciples were sent as Christ Himself was sent (John 20:21), their understandings were opened that they might understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:45); the extent of their commission was set before them, as well as the solemn issues of their work (Mark 16:15-16), and to that was added the promise of their Lord’s constant presence (Matthew 28:20).

4. not depart from Jerusalem] This injunction is only mentioned by St Luke (Luke 24:49). The importance of their keeping together until the Holy Ghost was given is clear. It would thus be made more manifest that, though hereafter scattered abroad, their inspiration was supplied from one common source. To the Jews, to whom the Apostles were first to speak, this would appeal, because their own prophet (Isaiah 2:3) had said “Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.”

ye have heard of me] This promise is alluded to (Luke 24:49) and found in St John (John 14:16; John 14:26; John 15:26), “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.” “The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, shall teach you all things,” &c. “He shall testify of me.” Thus were they to be prepared as witnesses for Christ.

5. ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost] Thus was now to be fulfilled that of which John the Baptist had spoken (Matthew 3:11), “He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.” Such an event, when it came to pass, could not fail to work mightily on the minds of those among Christ’s Apostles who had been disciples of John, as Andrew had been (John 1:40), and probably some of the others.

6. wilt thou … restore] Literally, dost thou restore (or art thou restoring), but the English future gives the sense.

the kingdom to Israel] The question was asked when all the Apostles were gathered together, so that the enquiry was not dictated by the mistaken notion of some single member. It shews, as do many other remarks and questions (cp. Luke 24:21, &c.), how far the Apostles were even yet from comprehending the spirituality and universality of the work to which Christ was sending them. A temporal kingdom confined to Israel is what they still contemplate. The change from the spirit which dictated the question in this verse, to that in which St Peter (Acts 2:38-39) preached repentance and forgiveness to all whom the Lord should call, is one of the greatest evidences of the miracle of Pentecost. Such changes can only come from above.

7. It is not for you, &c.] During the tutelage, as it may be called, of His disciples, our Lord constantly avoided giving a direct answer to enquiries which they addressed to Him. He checked in this way their tendency to speculate on the future, and drew their minds to their duty in the present. Cp. John 21:21-22.

in his own power] The word here rendered power is not the same as that so rendered in the following verse. The sense of this first word is “absolute disposal,” and we might well render it authority.

8. ye shall receive power] Something different from the profitless speculations to which they had just desired an answer, even “a mouth and wisdom which their adversaries could neither gainsay nor resist” (Luke 21:15). Thus would they be enabled to become Christ’s witnesses.

in Jerusalem, and in all Judea] To which district all the ministrations of the Apostles were confined till the death of Stephen.

and in Samaria] Whither the first who went with authority was Philip, one of the seven (Acts 8:5), and afterwards Peter and John.

and unto the uttermost part of the earth] Commenced by the preaching of Paul, Barnabas, Mark, Silas and Timothy, and regarded as placed on a secure footing when St Paul was once brought into the capital city of the world.

The writer keeps before him from first to last the promise contained in this verse, and leaves out of his narrative all that does not tend to illustrate its fulfilment. The work of every agent is followed so far as he is used to bring about this result and no farther. This will be noticed at each stage as we proceed, and it will be seen that it explains why among “Acts of Apostles” some works are included which were not carried on by Apostles, and why the histories of the chief agents are left incomplete.